@@ohitsustu1835 Um, OK, except that was your invitation to admit that your statement was simplistic and superficial. Lol. Because it turns out that "relying on Jesus Christ for salvation" involves faithfulness, covenant keeping, things like that, all as taught in scripture. Lol. So that it is just a silly response to a theology that is actually based on the gospel of Christ. Lol. Or, you know, we could do without the lol'ing. I actually hate that. "The modern excuse for wisdom," you could say.
@@leightonanderson Except that we rely totally on Jesus Christ for salvation. Gnosticism and legalism are not adequate. The point is about actual salvation. Faith, that God gives at rebirth, needs to be exercises as per the scriptures, not what we always perceive. Relationship is ongoing and from a humble heart of awe and thanks, in holy fear, even. No amount of works can buy salvation, no amount of Bible knowledge can deal with our sin. Saying 'in Jesus name' is not helpful unless we are in, Jesus name literally Depart from me I never knew you, is a scary proposition for those falsies who think they can add that like a charm to everything. Relationship with God, restored through Jesus, by the narrow way, empowered and nurtured by Holy Spirit is entirely by God, we just need to respond correctly and grow in Him. Grafted in, style.
Hello Timothy, could you tell me who Jesus is? And his relationship to other celestial beings, particularly Lucifer and God the Father? Also, do you believe Jesus to be eternal, or was he created?
Hi, I'm not Timothy but I can answer these questions from a Latter-day Saint perspective. Jesus is the Son of God. He taught that he (and we) have a father in heaven (that's Matt 6:9 among many other places), whom we therefore refer to as Heavenly Father. This does NOT make Jesus a "created being" (the Arian heresy of Christian history) and does mean that Jesus was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), from the beginning of creation. That's John 1:1-4, if you are following along with your Bible. Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil aka the Adversary was among the sons of God (Job 1:6 (some English translations render the Hebrew term in that verse as "angels" but the literal translation from Hebrew is "sons of God," and other translations are faithful to that)) and indeed held an exalted status (Isa. 14:12) until the war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), when he was cast down. It was a victory OF the Messiah (Jesus) and of Michael, the archangel (that's verses 7 and 10, if you haven't torn those pages out of the Bible yet). Long, long before then, the Father had already declared Jesus (or Jehovah or Yahweh) to be the "Only Begotten" of the Father, his "firstborn" and heir. ("Only Begotten" comes from latter-day scripture, Moses 1:31-34, but of course it tracks John 3:16 as well; "firstborn" is Colossians 1:15; and "heir" of the Father is Romans 8:17.) You're welcome! I realize that you did not know any of these things before, so I am happy to help you out.
@@mikelynn8977 I fail to see how your ignorance of known heresies justifies any conclusions on your part. If you think that the Lord is not allowed to call prophets or otherwise reveal himself or his truth to his people at any time, THAT is pretty much the worst heresy of all. Who are you to tell Jesus he has to shut up now, hmm? When you mention the angel Moroni, I am guessing you are referring to a common, but genuinely absurd eisegesis of Galatians 1:8. That would put you in good company with a great many numbskulls who cannot read scripture for the life of them. Paul there was using hyperbolic language to express his unhappiness with his fellow apostle, Peter, and other Jewish teachers who were trying to override the compromise worked out at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), as is very, very plain from that whole first section of the epistle (not limited to ch. 1). The effort to grab onto the reference to an angel in v. 8 to disqualify the Lord's messenger (!) not only is contrary to that actual passage but also to the reference to an angel later in Galatians (ch. 3, v. 19), which is that the law of Moses was “added” to the Mosaic Covenant (3:19), and that it “was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.” So, no, God is actually allowed to use angelic messengers. In Rev 14:6, we see prophesies of three separate angels used as messengers, the first of which brings "an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live[a] on the earth-to every nation and tribe and language and people." So, no, no heresy there, fellow.
If Latter-day saints are not Christian by the established Biblical understanding through Christ's teachings from the Bible, then is the Bible and Christ teachings wrong?
@TimothyBerman Your wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead. This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the TWO POWERS in HEAVEN israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible. Not from made up creeds you don't think reflects Jesus true teachings. Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit. You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead. .
@@davidjanbaz7728 You stated: "You are wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys (sic) Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead." My response: First off, it will benefit if you actually address that content of what I presented with regards to how Christ defines a true disciple and Christian? If I am wrong on that aspect, please show from the Biblical texts I referenced (or go to the link provided in the description to the article response I published) and show from the Bible what Christ actually taught with regards to how a Christian is defined. Second, Latter-day Saint Christians do not deny Jesus Christ as the second person of the Godhead. We believe that he is the Son of the Living God (as Peter confessed in Matthew 16). In that respect, you are incorrect in your assumption and mere opinion. However, the focus here is on how does one define Christian? It seems you prefer to define someone a Christian based on Creeds and Confessions that are extra-biblical, rather than address the Biblical source and definition. You stated: This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the two powers in Heaven Israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible. Not from made up creeds you don't think reflect Jesus True Teachings." My response: Again, the content and context is regarding how one Biblically defines a Christian and true disciple of Jesus Christ. If you want to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and that, I am in the process of actually preparing content for my TH-cam Channel with regard to how the doctrine of the Trinity is based on 2nd and 3rd Century gnostic heresy of Valentinus, Sabellianism (Modalism), and Neo-Platonic philosophy. I've already written and published various articles on this over at my website and blog. You Stated: " Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit. " My response: What you are engaging in is a Gish-Gallop logical fallacy and not addressing the content and context - or the very scriptures - I have presented regarding how the Bible defines what a true Christian is. Again, if you want to continue to comment and engage in a thoughtful discussion here - address what is presented and not engage in red herring and gish galloping logical fallacies. You stated: "You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead." My response: And that is your opinion absent any sufficient sound or reasonable evidence. Again, what does the Bible define as a Christian? What does Christ teach regarding who is a true follower and a disciple? Those are the questions I am bring up that are needing to be responded to and addressed.
Sadly, this video was a waste of time to listen to. With all due respect - these kinds of postmodern semantic games are not only simply misleading; but are simply mistaken. Your definition that you used from an 1820 (I think it was?) Dictionary, was a very arbitrary standard. Given that you’ve been around the block a few times having conversations with evangelicals for decades, I think you know better because you grew up in an era where Mormons were proud to be called that and didn’t engage in an equivocation fallacy by claiming to be Christians or just another Christian denomination, as though both groups had identical deities, or dogma. Shame on you sir, that’s not honoring chapter 31 of Gospel Principles by any stretch of the imagination.
@DMDex you stated: "Sadly, this video was a waste of time to listen to" My response: And that is your opinion. You stated: "With all due respect - these kinds of postmodern semantic games are not only simply misleading; but are simply mistaken." My response: No, it is due to a lack of respect. Secondly, you shoulder the burden of proof to prove that this is: (1) A Post-modern semantic game; and (2) It is misleading and mistaken. What evidence do you offer in relation to your claim and assertion? You stated: "Your definition that you used from an 1820 (I think it was?) Dictionary was a very arbitrary standard. My response: My definition was not merely based of a dictionary - it is based off what the Bible, and specifically, what Christ taught and defined. You stated: "Given that you’ve been around the block a few times having conversations with evangelicals for decades, I think you know better because you grew up in an era where Mormons were proud to be called that and didn’t engage in an equivocation fallacy by claiming to be Christians or just another Christian denomination, as though both groups had identical deities, or dogma." My response: Appears more of a misdirection and red herring logical fallacy because you have yet to provide any sufficient evidence or reasonable rebuttal addressing how I engaged in a post-modern semantic game where I am simply being misleading and mistaken. Furthermore, you have yet to offer any actual definition - merely passive aggressive toxic commentary as a means to merely insult. You stated: Shame on you sir, that's not honoring chapter 31 of Gospel Principles by any stretch of the imagination. My response: Another commentary of judgment, condemnation, and insult while not actually providing any sound and reasonable definition or addressing the content and context of what is presented. It is a shame that you appear to engage in an attitude and behavior of intellectual dishonesty. Now, if you have something worthwhile and like to share how the Bible, and specifically Christ's teachings, define what a Christian is - I'd love to consider reasonable evidence. If not, there is no need to further any more discussion.
Notice this is the typical hit and run comment of LDS Critics. They are unable to provide any sound or reasonable explanation. After all, it is easy to insult and make false claims than to actually be mindful and thoughtful in an engaging discussion.
Not if they don't rely entirely on Jesus Christ for salvation, nothing added.
What do you mean by that?
"Nothing added." Like, from the Bible you mean. Throw that sucker out, you're saying.
I don't think that's particularly Christian either.
@@leightonanderson the modern excuse for wisdom, the old 'so you're saying' stupidity. Lol.
@@ohitsustu1835 Um, OK, except that was your invitation to admit that your statement was simplistic and superficial. Lol. Because it turns out that "relying on Jesus Christ for salvation" involves faithfulness, covenant keeping, things like that, all as taught in scripture. Lol. So that it is just a silly response to a theology that is actually based on the gospel of Christ. Lol.
Or, you know, we could do without the lol'ing. I actually hate that. "The modern excuse for wisdom," you could say.
@@leightonanderson Except that we rely totally on Jesus Christ for salvation. Gnosticism and legalism are not adequate. The point is about actual salvation. Faith, that God gives at rebirth, needs to be exercises as per the scriptures, not what we always perceive. Relationship is ongoing and from a humble heart of awe and thanks, in holy fear, even. No amount of works can buy salvation, no amount of Bible knowledge can deal with our sin. Saying 'in Jesus name' is not helpful unless we are in, Jesus name literally Depart from me I never knew you, is a scary proposition for those falsies who think they can add that like a charm to everything. Relationship with God, restored through Jesus, by the narrow way, empowered and nurtured by Holy Spirit is entirely by God, we just need to respond correctly and grow in Him. Grafted in, style.
Hello Timothy, could you tell me who Jesus is? And his relationship to other celestial beings, particularly Lucifer and God the Father? Also, do you believe Jesus to be eternal, or was he created?
Hi, I'm not Timothy but I can answer these questions from a Latter-day Saint perspective. Jesus is the Son of God. He taught that he (and we) have a father in heaven (that's Matt 6:9 among many other places), whom we therefore refer to as Heavenly Father. This does NOT make Jesus a "created being" (the Arian heresy of Christian history) and does mean that Jesus was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), from the beginning of creation. That's John 1:1-4, if you are following along with your Bible.
Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil aka the Adversary was among the sons of God (Job 1:6 (some English translations render the Hebrew term in that verse as "angels" but the literal translation from Hebrew is "sons of God," and other translations are faithful to that)) and indeed held an exalted status (Isa. 14:12) until the war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), when he was cast down. It was a victory OF the Messiah (Jesus) and of Michael, the archangel (that's verses 7 and 10, if you haven't torn those pages out of the Bible yet). Long, long before then, the Father had already declared Jesus (or Jehovah or Yahweh) to be the "Only Begotten" of the Father, his "firstborn" and heir. ("Only Begotten" comes from latter-day scripture, Moses 1:31-34, but of course it tracks John 3:16 as well; "firstborn" is Colossians 1:15; and "heir" of the Father is Romans 8:17.)
You're welcome! I realize that you did not know any of these things before, so I am happy to help you out.
@leightonanderson the only heresy I'm fully aware of is Joseph Smith and his encounter with I believe an angel named Moroni.
@@mikelynn8977 I fail to see how your ignorance of known heresies justifies any conclusions on your part. If you think that the Lord is not allowed to call prophets or otherwise reveal himself or his truth to his people at any time, THAT is pretty much the worst heresy of all. Who are you to tell Jesus he has to shut up now, hmm?
When you mention the angel Moroni, I am guessing you are referring to a common, but genuinely absurd eisegesis of Galatians 1:8. That would put you in good company with a great many numbskulls who cannot read scripture for the life of them. Paul there was using hyperbolic language to express his unhappiness with his fellow apostle, Peter, and other Jewish teachers who were trying to override the compromise worked out at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), as is very, very plain from that whole first section of the epistle (not limited to ch. 1). The effort to grab onto the reference to an angel in v. 8 to disqualify the Lord's messenger (!) not only is contrary to that actual passage but also to the reference to an angel later in Galatians (ch. 3, v. 19), which is that the law of Moses was “added” to the Mosaic Covenant (3:19), and that it “was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.” So, no, God is actually allowed to use angelic messengers. In Rev 14:6, we see prophesies of three separate angels used as messengers, the first of which brings "an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live[a] on the earth-to every nation and tribe and language and people."
So, no, no heresy there, fellow.
No they're not.
If Latter-day saints are not Christian by the established Biblical understanding through Christ's teachings from the Bible, then is the Bible and Christ teachings wrong?
@TimothyBerman Your wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead.
This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the TWO POWERS in HEAVEN israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible.
Not from made up creeds you don't think reflects Jesus true teachings.
Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit.
You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead. .
@@davidjanbaz7728 You stated: "You are wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys (sic) Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead."
My response: First off, it will benefit if you actually address that content of what I presented with regards to how Christ defines a true disciple and Christian? If I am wrong on that aspect, please show from the Biblical texts I referenced (or go to the link provided in the description to the article response I published) and show from the Bible what Christ actually taught with regards to how a Christian is defined.
Second, Latter-day Saint Christians do not deny Jesus Christ as the second person of the Godhead. We believe that he is the Son of the Living God (as Peter confessed in Matthew 16). In that respect, you are incorrect in your assumption and mere opinion. However, the focus here is on how does one define Christian? It seems you prefer to define someone a Christian based on Creeds and Confessions that are extra-biblical, rather than address the Biblical source and definition.
You stated: This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the two powers in Heaven Israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible. Not from made up creeds you don't think reflect Jesus True Teachings."
My response: Again, the content and context is regarding how one Biblically defines a Christian and true disciple of Jesus Christ. If you want to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and that, I am in the process of actually preparing content for my TH-cam Channel with regard to how the doctrine of the Trinity is based on 2nd and 3rd Century gnostic heresy of Valentinus, Sabellianism (Modalism), and Neo-Platonic philosophy. I've already written and published various articles on this over at my website and blog.
You Stated: " Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit. "
My response: What you are engaging in is a Gish-Gallop logical fallacy and not addressing the content and context - or the very scriptures - I have presented regarding how the Bible defines what a true Christian is. Again, if you want to continue to comment and engage in a thoughtful discussion here - address what is presented and not engage in red herring and gish galloping logical fallacies.
You stated: "You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead."
My response: And that is your opinion absent any sufficient sound or reasonable evidence. Again, what does the Bible define as a Christian? What does Christ teach regarding who is a true follower and a disciple? Those are the questions I am bring up that are needing to be responded to and addressed.
Sadly, this video was a waste of time to listen to.
With all due respect - these kinds of postmodern semantic games are not only simply misleading; but are simply mistaken.
Your definition that you used from an 1820 (I think it was?) Dictionary, was a very arbitrary standard.
Given that you’ve been around the block a few times having conversations with evangelicals for decades, I think you know better because you grew up in an era where Mormons were proud to be called that and didn’t engage in an equivocation fallacy by claiming to be Christians or just another Christian denomination, as though both groups had identical deities, or dogma.
Shame on you sir, that’s not honoring chapter 31 of Gospel Principles by any stretch of the imagination.
@DMDex you stated: "Sadly, this video was a waste of time to listen to"
My response: And that is your opinion.
You stated: "With all due respect - these kinds of postmodern semantic games are not only simply misleading; but are simply mistaken."
My response: No, it is due to a lack of respect. Secondly, you shoulder the burden of proof to prove that this is: (1) A Post-modern semantic game; and (2) It is misleading and mistaken. What evidence do you offer in relation to your claim and assertion?
You stated: "Your definition that you used from an 1820 (I think it was?) Dictionary was a very arbitrary standard.
My response: My definition was not merely based of a dictionary - it is based off what the Bible, and specifically, what Christ taught and defined.
You stated: "Given that you’ve been around the block a few times having conversations with evangelicals for decades, I think you know better because you grew up in an era where Mormons were proud to be called that and didn’t engage in an equivocation fallacy by claiming to be Christians or just another Christian denomination, as though both groups had identical deities, or dogma."
My response: Appears more of a misdirection and red herring logical fallacy because you have yet to provide any sufficient evidence or reasonable rebuttal addressing how I engaged in a post-modern semantic game where I am simply being misleading and mistaken. Furthermore, you have yet to offer any actual definition - merely passive aggressive toxic commentary as a means to merely insult.
You stated: Shame on you sir, that's not honoring chapter 31 of Gospel Principles by any stretch of the imagination.
My response: Another commentary of judgment, condemnation, and insult while not actually providing any sound and reasonable definition or addressing the content and context of what is presented. It is a shame that you appear to engage in an attitude and behavior of intellectual dishonesty.
Now, if you have something worthwhile and like to share how the Bible, and specifically Christ's teachings, define what a Christian is - I'd love to consider reasonable evidence. If not, there is no need to further any more discussion.
Notice this is the typical hit and run comment of LDS Critics. They are unable to provide any sound or reasonable explanation. After all, it is easy to insult and make false claims than to actually be mindful and thoughtful in an engaging discussion.